Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

Obviously USC could have handled this much better. One thing is crystal clear in this though, that NO ONE realized how much of a money maker that college football would grow into. I agree that the contracts should be honored but it also shows that the school should never agree to something like this again. Hope that these loyal fans and USC can move on and focus on making our school ever better. I am glad that we are at the point to have enough in the short term money-wise as an Athletic Dept to instead focus on long term.

I wish someone would bring back the day threads and let's get a tally of all the posters on here who supported Mr. LEE and who trashed him and THOSE who thought Eric Hyman was sitting at the right hand of Jesus. There were only a few of us who defended these donors, and I mean very, very few. Most of the posters were only concerned about how much $ the university could rake in, not about the ones who had been there when we sucked. If these threads aren't rehashed, I will dI it when I get home, tomorrow.

__________________
"...the vast multitude rose as one man and stood on their feet, shouting, stamping, and filling all the place with such a waving of napkins that it was like a snowstorm..."
Mark Twain

I wish someone would bring back the day threads and let's get a tally of all the posters on here who supported Mr. LEE and who trashed him and THOSE who thought Eric Hyman was sitting at the right hand of Jesus. There were only a few of us who defended these donors, and I mean very, very few. Most of the posters were only concerned about how much $ the university could rake in, not about the ones who had been there when we sucked. If these threads aren't rehashed, I will dI it when I get home, tomorrow.

Please don't, there is no need to try to rub someone's nose in something.

__________________

To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

Please don't, there is no need to try to rub someone's nose in something.

I sort of remember a lot of posters who basically echoed Jeff Cranes sentiments that the old folks weren't dying quick enough and that their contributions, in the past, we're irrelevant.

Really, it's a wonder our stadium doesn't bear the name of some corporate entity, we still don't have to pay to attend the spring game, and alcohol isn't sold in the stadium, since $ is everything.
Not only that, these same people, who had given so much, in the dark ages, were being told, on here, that they weren't real Gamecocks. In their minds, the whole stadium should be corporate suites and sky boxes for millionaires, with a few rows of free seating for the students, of course, who are the only ones who cheer for the team.

__________________
"...the vast multitude rose as one man and stood on their feet, shouting, stamping, and filling all the place with such a waving of napkins that it was like a snowstorm..."
Mark Twain

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your communication to the Office of General Counsel and have been advised that the case is not final and the communications related to the payment of the YES portion of the ticket cost must be handled through the attorneys. Will Davidson has been advised to contact your attorney.

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your communication to the Office of General Counsel and have been advised that the case is not final and the communications related to the payment of the YES portion of the ticket cost must be handled through the attorneys. Will Davidson has been advised to contact your attorney.

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your communication to the Office of General Counsel and have been advised that the case is not final and the communications related to the payment of the YES portion of the ticket cost must be handled through the attorneys. Will Davidson has been advised to contact your attorney.

I am in no way an expert on Law, but please be careful about what communication you post anywhere online espcially until the ruling is final. Remember that the GC employees have to do what they are being told by their Counsel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgelee57

Still not getting cooperation in spite of the courts ruling.

Mr. Lee,

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your communication to the Office of General Counsel and have been advised that the case is not final and the communications related to the payment of the YES portion of the ticket cost must be handled through the attorneys. Will Davidson has been advised to contact your attorney.

Re: SC Supreme Court Issues Ruling re: Seat License Fees Edit | Reply
I go to work everyday and have for over 30 years. Everything I have I have made. While I cannot comment on the reason that the other Lifetime Member's purchased these policies, I know why I did and it was because I was called, met with regarding the program and was convinced that it would be of great benefit to the university going forward. The fact that Mr. Hyman decided to cash the policies in for pennies on the dollar was his and his alone.

When a great many of the Lifetime Donors purchased these policies they were in the early to late thirties and really were not giving a great deal of thought to when they might die. What I was thinking about was the ability to do something for my University as my family has done for over five decades. I never approached anyone and requested any type of special deal. None of the lifetime members did, we were approached by USC.

I do not know you personally, do not know how long you have been a member of the GC Club or if are even a graduate of USC. What I do know is that you seem to have hard feelings for some unjustified reason which is your right. Very easy to support a winner folks. Would it be the same if we remained a middle of the road team?

The brightest legal minds in our great state considered all of the evidence and testimony from the lower court and determined that the lower court erred. If the decision had gone the other way I would have accepted it and moved on with my life. Seems some folks want to belabor the point and in fact some do not get the point.

We had an AD in Mr. Hyman who made a business decision to disregard over 200 valid agreements that had been in place for 20 years and had been honored up until his arrival. No preliminary contact was made with any of the Lifetime members and not one person from the GC Club or AD's office ever offered any reasonable explanation as to why we were not given the respect that all humans deserve. I was told by Jeff Crane in his office that we were not dying fast enough (what a guy). Class act and still with the AD'S OFFICE. We were treated as though we were used commodities to be discarded and all of this by number's cruncher's' with MBA's (not from USC, Jeff Crane UNC) WHO were brought here BY Hyman for a specific purpose, raise money at all costs and forget the long term fans. These folks were and are not Gamecoocks they are resume builders who want to prove their great ability as fundraisers so they can move on and repeat the process. There is no loyalty here, just look at what is occurring at A&M, sound familiar. We now have true gamecocks as coaches and as our AD. Ray and Steve and all of our coaches have proven their loyalty and have and will continue to do things the right way. Let's do what we have always done, love our university and team, treat other with respect and always act in a manner that reflects positively on you and your USC.

Remember this, second thought will be given going forward before we as fans are simply looked at as $$$$ and not as the loyal Gamecock fans that we are. Let Ray do his job, support your team and help those in need. No one has the right to flagrantly disregard the rights of others in the manner that Mr. Hyman did and he was not and never will be a true gamecock.

We have what we need in place at the AD level now and he has proven both his loyalty and also that he is USC as we know and love it.

One final note. You can continue to make negative posts till the cows come home. The facts speak for themselves. Would you have defended your own rights as well as those of over two hundred others at your own expense, follow through for six years and ask for only one thing in return? When you can honestly answer that question as a "YES" then feel free to comment all you want about the intentions and background of third parties you know little if nothing about. Put four children through USC at the same time, maintain your obligations to your alma mater and then feel free to comment. Until that time I do not feel that you a have a whole lot to comment on. Go help other's, do something that has a positive affect on other's and remain a Gamecock.

No hard feelings on my part,

With Warmest Regards,

George M. Lee,III

Did you mean to quote me? I'm pretty sure I was defending you,and the other gamecock club members. I would of fought this at the time the yes fees happened. Question did you do this when the yes fee's first started? if yes we have a very slow court system that needs some work done for a simple breach of contract case.

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your communication to the Office of General Counsel and have been advised that the case is not final and the communications related to the payment of the YES portion of the ticket cost must be handled through the attorneys. Will Davidson has been advised to contact your attorney.

There is a certain amount of time for the losing party to file for a request for rehearing. (USC may make such a filing.) You should ask your attorney. I think it is ten days at the Supreme Court to request a rehearing on the case. That is what she means in her email by "not final."

That was a polite email, likely following the instructions of the school's attorney, Will Davidson.

Please don't, there is no need to try to rub someone's nose in something.

Actually, I wanted to see my own comments regarding the implementation the program, but I was NOT a member of this esteemed forum, back then.

__________________
"...the vast multitude rose as one man and stood on their feet, shouting, stamping, and filling all the place with such a waving of napkins that it was like a snowstorm..."
Mark Twain

WOW, have to say I'm glad you're not my accountant ! & no there was no ''HOOK UPS'' from inside friends. When this was first brought up a letter was sent out to all Gamecock Club Members. At the time it was a sweet deal for the Athletic Department and the fan. I was a half scholarship donor at the time and entitled to 6 tickets ( 4 + 2 ) & thought this would be a great way to establish better seats. Seems like we had about a year to sign up for it and during this time I became separated and was in the beginnings of a lengthy divorce, so I opted out. To say someone has made millions is absurd. Heck I can remember in the mid to late 90's I couldn't even give tickets away !!!

It's not one person. It's 25 people in one family buying up 200 seats of the stadium every yer at face value for enternity we are talking about. You don't think that family has the potential to make millions over decades? They obviously don't need 200 seats. Ask yourself why someone would sue and hire lawyers for for $325 a seat and take a case all the way to an SC supreme court? Because of principle? Get serious. $325 x 200 seats is $60,000. He is suing so his family doesn't have to pay 60K a year. It cuts in to their profits too much. Let's use a little common sense to figure out what is really going on here. P.S. Posting in giant red letters doesn't make what you say any more important.

It's not one person. It's 25 people in one family buying up 200 seats of the stadium every yer at face value for enternity we are talking about. You don't think that family has the potential to make millions over decades? They obviously don't need 200 seats. Ask yourself why someone would sue and hire lawyers for for $325 a seat and take a case all the way to an SC supreme court? Because of principle? Get serious. $325 x 200 seats is $60,000. He is suing so his family doesn't have to pay 60K a year. It cuts in to their profits too much. Let's use a little common sense to figure out what is really going on here. P.S. Posting in giant red letters doesn't make what you say any more important.

It is not 25 people in one family. Where are you getting that. A few of them may have been related but it was 25 separate people. Only one guy kept pressing it. A few did sue but they didn't appeal to the Supreme court

It is not 25 people in one family. Where are you getting that. A few of them may have been related but it was 25 separate people. Only one guy kept pressing it. A few did sue but they didn't appeal to the Supreme court

I am going to let the court system handle this from here on out. All of the justices on our Supreme court are very well versed in all aspects of the law. Time will tell. Best wishes to all. As for the question regarding the filing date of my suit, it was shortly after the announcement of the YES program but only after all attempts to resolve this matter without filing suit were rebuffed.

Let's just enjoy the sping weather and get ready of summer and next fall.

Did you mean to quote me? I'm pretty sure I was defending you,and the other gamecock club members. I would of fought this at the time the yes fees happened. Question did you do this when the yes fee's first started? if yes we have a very slow court system that needs some work done for a simple breach of contract case.

I appreciated your response. Sorry for any confusion. Yes, 6 years is a long time but worth the wait.

It's not one person. It's 25 people in one family buying up 200 seats of the stadium every yer at face value for enternity we are talking about. You don't think that family has the potential to make millions over decades? They obviously don't need 200 seats. Ask yourself why someone would sue and hire lawyers for for $325 a seat and take a case all the way to an SC supreme court? Because of principle? Get serious. $325 x 200 seats is $60,000. He is suing so his family doesn't have to pay 60K a year. It cuts in to their profits too much. Let's use a little common sense to figure out what is really going on here. P.S. Posting in giant red letters doesn't make what you say any more important.

Common sense can go both ways. Why would the University go back on a deal that they agreed on? $ Bottom line is that they made the offer, these folks took them up on the offer even though for decades they lost money on the deal. How? I used to get Gamecock tickets in the 80's for $5. The 90's were just as bad. No one saw the SEC coming unitl 1989. Sometimes, I got tickets for free because people were just trying to get rid of them. The math has to work both ways, not just your way. They lost in the 80's big time.

Bottom line is that the University has lost. It's over. Honor your agreement. Deal with it.

__________________If your worst fears come true, you no longer have anything left to fear.

Common sense can go both ways. Why would the University go back on a deal that they agreed on? $ Bottom line is that they made the offer, these folks took them up on the offer even though for decades they lost money on the deal. How? I used to get Gamecock tickets in the 80's for $5. The 90's were just as bad. No one saw the SEC coming unitl 1989. Sometimes, I got tickets for free because people were just trying to get rid of them. The math has to work both ways, not just your way. They lost in the 80's big time.

Bottom line is that the University has lost. It's over. Honor your agreement. Deal with it.

You didn't getthese seats for free. He's got the good seats. He might not have been rolling in it until the Holtz years and then the YES program, but he was turning a decent profit.

Bottom line is. They shouldn't honor it. They should make him sue the University. Some guys sign a contract in the 80's and 50 years from now when all these party to that agreement are dead the new people are stuck with it? No. That isn't right. There has to be a line a drawn. I agree that the University should own up to this bad deal. But they should own up to it by doing what they have to do to get out of the bad deal that should not have been. Not just bite the bullet for all of eternity. You bite the bullet once and be done with not. Just keep biting it over and over again forever. That is called business, breaking bad deals and making good ones. It happens every day.

You didn't getthese seats for free. He's got the good seats. He might not have been rolling in it until the Holtz years and then the YES program, but he was turning a decent profit.

Bottom line is. They shouldn't honor it. They should make him sue the University. Some guys sign a contract in the 80's and 50 years from now when all these party to that agreement are dead the new people are stuck with it? No. That isn't right. There has to be a line a drawn. I agree that the University should own up to this bad deal. But they should own up to it by doing what they have to do to get out of the bad deal that should not have been. Not just bite the bullet for all of eternity. You bite the bullet once and be done with not. Just keep biting it over and over again forever. That is called business, breaking bad deals and making good ones. It happens every day.

There are two schools of thought on contracts. One school is the system I call honorable. Two people make an agreement and shake hands on it. Promises made promises kept. Even if it turns out to be a bad deal for one side, he feels honor-bound to keep his word. Keeping promises is important.

The other school of thought is like yours, amoral. Contracts are not moral obligations at all. Either party may choose to breach and accept the consequences of the breach, which is typically damages flowing therefrom. If the cost of paying those damages are less than the cost of continuing to meet contractual obligations, that becomes the rational choice.

The amoral view is typically practiced by most large corporations and some northeastern businessmen. The former view of honoring contracts by small businesses and many individuals in the southeast. Mr. Hyman believed in the amoral viewpoint. It is a choice, but one that may not have been ethical in some people's eyes.

You didn't getthese seats for free. He's got the good seats. He might not have been rolling in it until the Holtz years and then the YES program, but he was turning a decent profit.

Bottom line is. They shouldn't honor it. They should make him sue the University. Some guys sign a contract in the 80's and 50 years from now when all these party to that agreement are dead the new people are stuck with it? No. That isn't right. There has to be a line a drawn. I agree that the University should own up to this bad deal. But they should own up to it by doing what they have to do to get out of the bad deal that should not have been. Not just bite the bullet for all of eternity. You bite the bullet once and be done with not. Just keep biting it over and over again forever. That is called business, breaking bad deals and making good ones. It happens every day.

Um...I got a ticket for no money. That means, I got the ticket for free. No BS word play can get around that. I got the tickets for free.

He lost money for 20 years, by your own admission. You can't just ignore that, no matter how much you want to try to prove your invalid point. When you buy something and cannot sell something that expires, you lose money.

Breaking deals do happen every day, which is why lawsuits happen every day to enforce the deals that get broken because one party no longer wants to abide by a contract. THAT is called business. When one party changes the rules and the other party sues to enforce the deal and the court agrees with a party, it's over.

It's like you have no clue about anything.

__________________If your worst fears come true, you no longer have anything left to fear.

The issue boils down to the Yes program which while a licensing fee also partly becomes a tax deductible option as a donation. The easy thing for the school to do would simply be to add the cost of the Yes program into the cost of the ticket and then upon renewal allow the buyer to decide whether they want a portion of the ticket price to go towards the Yes program or the full amount applied to the tickets. That way it is your choice if you want to donate money but the tickets cost the same regardless. Nothing on the ruling impacts the cost of the tickets just the PSL inclusion.